The Los Angeles Times reports that proponents of Proposition 8 have filed an emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court to enjoin the federal district court trying the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 from showing the trial on You Tube after the day’s proceedings:
Reporting from Washington – The lawyers defending California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage urged the U.S. Supreme Court today to block video coverage of next week’s trial in San Francisco.
They filed an emergency appeal with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and argued that their client’s right to a fair trial would be jeopardized if each day’s proceedings were put on YouTube.
The trial “has the potential to become a media circus,” wrote attorney Charles Cooper. “The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop. 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere, witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony being broadcast worldwide on YouTube.”
I’m not sure I agree with this analysis. The trial isn’t going to be the typical trial in the sense one might think. There likely will be many experts and academics testifying as witnesses rather than the run of the mill voters who participated in the election in November 2008. There’s less likely to be a media circus in a federal court room like the one we saw in the O.J. Simpson trial. Those who think that will be the case haven’t spent much time inside a federal court room. Most federal judges run a pretty tight ship, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other local court rules, including the judge’s ability to run his courtroom like his own personal kingdom will keep the media and others in order.
Frankly it just looks bad for the Proposition 8 proponents to want to hide this trial from the public. I think the federal challenge to Proposition 8 has an uphill battle. But, regardless, I’m a big believer in open and public access to our judicial system. I think cameras in the courtroom are not only appropriate, but more and more likely in the future. Let’s let the world see the finest judicial system at its best, particularly in this case when the arguments are going to be ground breaking, unique, and critically important.
The Mercury News has a good article overview on the upcoming trial. Should be interesting.
January 10, 2010 at 8:37 am
It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. Until the right-wing, religious fanatics in this country stop trying to control everybody else and force their “morals” down the throat of the country, there can be no real freedom in the United States. I invite you to my web pages devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on our freedom: http://freethegods.blogspot.com/2009/06/san-franciscos-gay-pride-parade.html
January 10, 2010 at 10:11 am
“The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop. 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence.”
I believe that in this one case, the attorneys are being completely straightforward in their motives for wanting the proceedings unfilmed.
There may even be those who would be intimidated by such broad-based coverage, and either refuse to testify, or moderate their testimony.
There is a big difference between going “on the record” in a written court report, and in a youtube video.
January 11, 2010 at 9:21 am
The argument to ban coverage in order to “protect” the defense witnesses is illusory, since the proceedings are all public record, thus transcripts can be made available, etc. If the defendants were sincere in their anguish for the safety of their witnesses, they’d be moving to have the proceedings sealed altogether–something that simply wouldn’t happen.
Even if they argue that camera coverage presents a greater “danger” than transcripts, however, the defense position is problematic from a public policy standpoint. The defense argument suggests that their witnesses will refuse to testify, or change their testimony, if they are actually held accountable for what they present in court. While nobody can justify violent or unlawfl acts of reprisal, the defense complains that their witnesses may be subject to “ecomonic reprisal” (i.e. boycotts of businesses owned by Prop 8 supporters). This is a remarkable claim, when one considers how many boycotts have been organized by religious groups. Pepsi, Disney, and Campbell Soup have all been subjected to “christian” boycotts in recent years, due to actions such as providing domestic partner benefits or showing a same-sex couple serving soup to their child in an advertisement.
January 11, 2010 at 9:26 am
There is a big difference between going “on the record” in a written court report, and in a youtube video.
What would that “big difference” be, Matthew, other than enhanced accountability? If anything, making the testimony more readily accessible to the public (the result of YouTube videos in this case) should make both sides more careful in presenting truthful, accurate testimony. If the proponents of Prop 8 are so certain that they’re on the side of truth and deity, they should gladly go on the record in the most public way possible. Their alleged fears shouldn’t deter them at all, when their own sacred writings encourage them to bear persecution for the sake of their deity’s word.
January 11, 2010 at 11:07 am
It should go without saying that marriage must involve a man and a woman. If you change the definition to include any coupling of consenting adults, you’ve changed what the word “marriage” means.
January 11, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Whether anyone agrees with your anti-marriage-equality position or not, Mark B., that’s surely a brilliant and insightful statement you’ve made! Wow—if you “change the definition” of a word, you’ve “changed what the word means.” Who’d have thought??
January 11, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I was disappointed to hear the Supreme Court decided against televising the debate. That’s too bad. It’s self serving. They don’t want to set a precedent so one day someone sets them up to be ridiculed on youtube for their idiotic debates at the SCOTUS.
Look, if you are unwilling to publicly defend your position on a controversial issue, then shut the hell up. If you require secrecy in order to try and convince others of your way, you’re really lame. I say this for everyone. Those who backed Prop 8, those who didn’t. Those who back any controversial thing. Be willing to stand for it publicly, to also be subject to the natural results of publicly standing for something controversial: the ridicule that comes with it. Jesus didn’t back down just because what he said was controversial. Neither did Joseph Smith. Why would anyone do it now? Be unafraid. Stand for what you believe and let the world know it.
January 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Nick,
Exactly! Spot on.
January 12, 2010 at 11:00 am
I think there’s a diff between being on YouTube where you’ll have people creating who knows what horrible “mashups” by showing answers to questions as answers to some other question.
We all know it’s been done on radio: Chop up the tape, pick the juiciest part, make it sound like this person is answering a particular question, while the question that is presented is not the original one. That has happened also in print.
As long as the court record is available, why make it a TV circus — that tends to bring all the freaks and kooks plus other fringe idiots and wingnuts.
You know, it’s not about the trial for the opponents; it’s about air time and publicity.
January 12, 2010 at 11:20 am
Senator Durbin’s comment on another matter, about wanting YouTube at the site:
Also, there’s plenty of data to go through. Nobody, but nobody can boast about having gone through all of it.
If full-time researchers have a hard time seeing the big picture, what makes you think that a drug addict like Limbaugh knows all the truth. For some reason, I only know Bill Maher, that is anywhere near corresponding to Rush on the other fringe, he’s no better.
I am criticizing politicians and pundits here, not taking a stand in the old Asses vs. Elephants fight. Please try to see that.
January 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm
velska, I think you bring up an excellent point. The answer, of course, is to ensure that we pay attention to who has posted any YouTube video coverage. The court, assuming the SCOTUS clears the way tomorrow, will post complete videos. Anyone else who posts or reposts, may be editing the video for their own purposes.
January 12, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Nick,
That’s excellent. The court posts video; that’ll most likely be the whole public part of it. Anybody else; you’re on your own, if you don’t check the source and validate!
January 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm
hey Guy, I gotta say I am highly disappointed at the defense of the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco. I’ve been somewhat keeping up with the trial and I think this recap of the last day of testimony really nailed it.
I gotta say that Prop 8 proponents really do not have a compelling case.
February 1, 2010 at 12:24 pm
It’s fantastic how one-sided you can see things, when you have already decided what you think.
Are you saying, in fact, that there is no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple?
It’s like the ultimate feminist stand that there is NO difference between man and woman, when a look in the mirror will tell you otherwise, and overwhelming scientific evidence supports your impression.
Not that one is somehow inferior, just that there is a difference, is a good starting point.
February 1, 2010 at 7:34 pm
me? One sided? This is probably the biggest issue on which I am on neither side. I am merely making commentary on the trial going on Perry v Schwarzenegger. Prop 8 opponents came well prepared with a compelling argument. It seems Prop 8 proponents didn’t bother to prepare very well, or maybe their arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
February 2, 2010 at 12:59 am
You see Prop8 opponents as having come prepared, but what if the proponents didn’t bother dignifying the suit by being very aggressive, thinking the opponents really didn’t have a leg to stand on?
I mean, citing historical evidence about gay-bashing is hardly proof that the defenders of the religious definition of marriage are motivated by hatred.
Some no doubt are, just like some gays hate people, who think that sex outside a God-sanctioned — “straight” — marriage is a grievous sin, and that society should punish those people. The caricatures are not true for either side, and it’s hard to imagine that a district judge would be so uneducated, that s/he would think that the caricature is proof of some nefarious gay-bashing conspiracy that has risen all of a sudden.
But yes, there is some understandable backlash against the “activist” fringe of LGBT community, who are trying to force Churches to sanction SSM against their doctrines. That, my dear, is infringing on one Bill of Rights -human right, the Freedom of Religion.
Just like government must not establish a religion, it must not dictate to religion what they should accept as doctrine. If a church does not want to sanction SSM, they should have the right.
February 2, 2010 at 10:16 am
wow Velska,
there sure are a lot of misunderstandings and instances of ignorance in your comment.
1. Prop 8 opponents didn’t just cite historical evidence of gay bashing as their proof. They cited credible studies that showed that marriage (hetero and homo) tended to improve the lives of the individuals involved. They showed that human beings do better in life when married, and that there was no difference psychologically between homosexuals who were married and heterosexuals who were married. The historical gay bashing obviously is important because all that negative language and action tend to have very negative psychological consequences upon the individual bearing the brunt of such vile talk.
I’m quite open to a well thought, well reasoned rationale for being against gay marriage with evidence that shows the negative consequences to society of allowing such things. I just cannot see it. The argument that down the road our society will crumble is just simply not a good argument. I can make a very similar one. Take a stereotypical drunkard who you know will be abusive to his spouse should he ever decide to get married. His children will become drunkards themselves (there is strong research that shows children of drunks eventually becoming drunks themselves). Yet our society, even knowing this to be a possibility, still allows that individual to get married and go down that path of destruction for himself, his wife, and his children (and of course the rest of society that has to deal with their problems). Don’t tell me of problems 100 years from now because of this decision here.
2. Who is trying to force churches to sanction SSM? What evidence do you have of this? This seems to be your only argument against SSM. At least, it is the only one you present in this comment. What evidence do you have of this?
January 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm
my comment is in moderation
February 2, 2010 at 1:31 am
Velsa, what gay rights people/organizations, etc., are trying to force a religion to accept a doctrine they find abhorrent? Catholics don’t have to marry divorced people, no religion has to marry gay couples. Gays want civil–governmental–wedding, and religious weddings from congregations that embrace them.
Besides, the first amendment prevents any such overreaching. Did the Mormon church ever have to wed a black couple in the temple prior to 1978? Absolutely not. What makes you think that things have changed? If anything religious rights have gotten stronger since. Ask if you like, and I’ll give you case law.
February 2, 2010 at 1:33 am
Besides, Velska, I, mistakenly, always saw you as one of the good guys. We obviously differ on the definition of ‘good.”
February 2, 2010 at 2:00 am
Am I now one of the “bad” guys if I don’t accept the right to call a same-sex union a “marriage” a basic human right?
And I know the Church was never forced to seal a black couple in the temple, but I also do believe, that the kind of activists, who are now the loudest in clamoring for “equal human rights”, are the kind who will try that kind of overreaching and they’ve already proved it.
I support civil unions. Actually, I think that we should separate civil unions — something performed by a JP or a magistrate — and a marriage performed by churches.
That way, nobody would be “married” unless they find a church that will marry them. Then the activist fringe would not have a leg to stand on.
I don’t like discrimination; the situation is just like in feminism: If you say, that research supports the notion that women’s brains are different than men’s, they say NONONONO!!! because they themselves believe women are inferior.
Why is “different” always perceived the same as “inferior”? My wife sure is different than me — vive la difference! — but certainly not inferior!
I’m just saying, that my grandkids are not going to be told that a gay couple is “perfectly normal”, because “normal” means that most are like that. No, they’re different, but they’re people like us, which means we must see them as brothers/sisters.
February 2, 2010 at 3:52 am
Velska, you hit the nail on the head.
February 2, 2010 at 10:19 am
velska,
What evidence do you have of this? Because if you have no evidence, you’re merely showing your fear, and not being rational.
February 2, 2010 at 10:43 am
I have better things to do than hunt for the hard evidence you ask for, besides we both know that whatever I say won’t change your mind about it. There’s been the odd news article about gays bringing legal actions against Churches, but what do I know; it might be the liberal bias of MSM.
The gay activist fringe who wish the force their world view on me is wrong if they say that there is no difference in family dynamics between same-sex and heterosexual parents’ families. I know a few gay people myself, and I know that they are different in subtle ways (not your stereotype limp wrists, though). I definitely don’t condemn them by saying that.
I say again that you can not say there’s no difference psychologically between gay and straight couples as parents,for example. The sample sizes we have of adults raised up by same-sex parents is way too small to say much about it.
Besides, if you listen to adults that’ve been raised by gay couples, you’ll get people who say that they don’t think it’s such a great idea. Plus a good number of them seem to be gay. I’m not sure what the demographic statistics would say about that, but to a casual observer they go over the percentage of gays in whole population.
I have absolutely no fear. Where I live, gay couples have civil unions that give them the exact same rights as a straight marriage, and some churches “bless” those unions, whatever that means — I haven’t been present in such a rite. If I had a friend who invited me to one, I’d go, and I wouldn’t use it to preach to them about the sinfulness of their lifestyle, either.
I’m just not the bogeyman you’re trying to make me out to be, Daniel. I’m just not ready to say that there’s no difference between “us” and “them” just like I don’t believe theres no difference between men and women.
February 2, 2010 at 10:45 am
Fourth paragraph, end of first line should have stated: … you’ll also get people who say …”
February 2, 2010 at 11:38 am
velska,
You brought charges against me in your comment on my comment. If you wish to withdraw them, then that’s great. But if you wish to keep them up, then I do actually demand you back up your charges.
You provide no evidence that any gay rights group will do something to force religions to accept SSM. Yet you make that charge against them (and somehow tie me up with gay rights activists when I clearly state I am on neither side). If you cannot back up your charge, then you base your charge on unfounded fears, and not rational thought. So when you say you have “absolutely no fear” why do you make such a charge: that gay rights activists will do anything to force churches to accept SSM?
I’ve never accused you of being a bogeyman. I’ve simply asked you to back up your claim. But I did state that if you cannot back up your claim, then your position is based on fear of the other. And that is a fairly accurate statement of the position you take.
February 2, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Daniel, I did not accuse you of anything, or are you among the loudest voices clamoring for the “human rights” of this totally shunned minority? And now that I looked up the thread, it was djinn, who confessed having “mistakenly” believed me to be one of the good guys, so my bad.
And, neither do you comment my other allegations. Should we infer that “you let it stand” that adults raised by gay couples are more often gay than general population? There must be very convincing statistics to prove me wrong, no?
You have just as good of a chance of unearthing those news articles about legal actions against churches. I do not know 100% what they’re about.
February 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm
velska,
I back up the assertions I make. It is not my burden of proof to prove your assertions. But if you wish, then I ask you to provide evidence of your assertion that adults raised by gay couples are more often gay than the general population.
My initial comment here was solely a complaint that I didn’t feel the Prop 8 proponents really made any effort to bring their game to this trial whereas the gay rights side certainly did. It is as if it appears that prop 8 proponents have given up the argument.
February 2, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Okay, you talk about “facts, scholarship and science” but you don’t back that up. What, exactly, are the facts that you are referring to? That gays have been unfairly persecuted? True enough. That’s what the plaintiffs have established, too, basically, to get back to the case itself.
I really would like to see real equality. Like I said, here we have equality, but same-sex unions are not called marriage, neither is there enormous pressure to make it so.
February 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm
velska,
I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. The link I provide in my original comment links to the transcripts of the trial where all the evidence is present. That should suffice. You’re free to view them yourself.
February 3, 2010 at 6:18 am
What I saw was “expert witnesses” giving opinions they were paid to give. Just like the Big Tobacco can always trot a number of doctors to state that the link between lung cancer and smoking is unconvincing.
But let’s call it a truce. I actually do not think it right to discriminate.
I think that the secular state should remove from their laws all reference to “marriage” in favor of civil unions and let churches deal with the marriage aspect how they choose. If churches are then free from pressure to accept definitions of marriage they do not accept, nobody can get hurt by that.
Otherwise, churches definitely are within their rights to use the means in their disposal to propagandize in favor of their views as much as the gay rights activists are. I don’t see that LDS Church is the original cause of gay-bashing.
August 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Unconstitutional. As I stated way back when, forcing something into the constitution doesn’t magically make something constitutional.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html
REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.”